Alas, the Foursquare conference, hosted by the Quadrangle PE fund, is an invitation-only affair. And the event, which kicks off tomorrow, is closed to the press except for reporters onstage to interview the stars. And those conversations don’t get released to the public.

That’s a particular bummer this time. Because the Quadrangle guys–who have had a rough year–had the foresight to get a lineup that includes GE (GE) CEO Jeff Immelt, who appears to be in the final stages of selling NBC Universal to Comcast (CMCSA) CEO Brian Roberts, who will also be onstage. Sure would be nice to hear what they say.

Another panel that piques my interest, if only because of the title: “Are Popularity and Profitability Correlated?” It features Twitter’s Stone, LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman and YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley. And would-be moguls are represented by a start-up pitch panel that includes Dennis Crowley of Foursquare, the superbuzzy mobile service whose name has nothing to do with Quadrangle’s conference.

So once again, here’s the complete list of those you won’t be hearing from this week as they gather at the Plaza in Manhattan. Unless, perhaps, one of my more ambitious colleagues sneaks in–I’m thinking of you, Bobby MacMillan–and gets us a first-hand account.

2009 SPEAKERS
EMILIO AZCÁRRAGA President, Board of Directors and CEO, Grupo Televisa
DENNIS CROWLEY Co-Founder, foursquare
BARRY DILLER Chairman and CEO, IAC; Chairman, Expedia, Inc. and Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc.
BRIAN DUNN CEO, Best Buy
CHARLES FORMAN Founder, OMGPOP
REED HASTINGS Founder, Chairman and CEO, Netflix
REID HOFFMAN Executive Chairman and Founder, LinkedIn Corporation
CHAD HURLEY CEO and Co-Founder, YouTube
JEFF IMMELT Chairman and CEO, GE
PAUL JACOBS Chairman and CEO, Qualcomm Incorporated
OLLI-PEKKA KALLASVUO President and CEO, Nokia
JASON KILAR CEO, Hulu
LESLIE MOONVES President and CEO, CBS Corporation
ANNE MULCAHY Chairman, Xerox Corporation
JAMES MURDOCH Chairman and Chief Executive, Europe & Asia, News Corporation
BRIAN PHILLIPS CEO and Co-Founder, Thread
DAN PORTER CEO, OMGPOP
BRIAN ROBERTS Chairman and CEO, Comcast Corporation
PAUL SAGAN President and CEO, Akamai
ERIC SCHMIDT Chairman and CEO, Google
IVAN SEIDENBERG Chairman and CEO, Verizon Communications
BIZ STONE Co-Founder, Twitter
HOWARD STRINGER Chairman, CEO and President, Sony Corporation
BEN VERWAAYEN CEO, Alcatel-Lucent
DAVID ZASLAV President and CEO, Discovery Communications

MODERATORS
MARC ANDREESSEN General Partner, Andreessen Horowitz
KEN AULETTA Author and Writer, “Annals of Communications”, The New Yorker
MARIA BARTIROMO Anchor, Closing Bell; Host & Managing Editor, Wall Street Journal Report, CNBC
JAMES CITRIN Co-Leader, Board & CEO Practice, North America, Spencer Stuart
DAVID FABER Anchor, Reporter, CNBC
MICHAEL HUBER Co-President and Managing Principal, Quadrangle Group
BECKY QUICK Co-Anchor, Squawk Box, CNBC
GEOFFREY SANDS Director & Leader, Global Media, Entertainment & Information Practice, McKinsey & Co.
JOSHUA L. STEINER Co-President and Managing Principal, Quadrangle Group
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS Anchor, This Week; Chief Washington Correspondent, ABC News

Schmidt added a bit of nuance to that message today, noting that the company had been surprised to see its European business bounce back as quickly as it has. Here’s my transcript of his opening statement.

We are clearly seeing aspects of recovery, and what is notable is that we’re seeing aspects of recovery not just in the United States but in Europe. I had been in error in assuming that there would be a lag, that it would the U.S. first and Europe second. Asia, of course, was never significantly hit in the first place.

So that means from a Google perspective that…we never stopped hiring, but we told our team internally and again, we’ve said to many other people that we are increasing our hiring rate and our investment rate in anticipation of a recovery.

Schmidt and Google co-founder Sergey Brin covered a lot of ground in the hour-plus press conference, and I’ll try to go back and break out out some of the other highlights. A few items worth noting in summary:

• Brin expressed contrition over recent Gmail outages and said the company was working both to prevent future failures and to react more quickly if and when they do happen. But he reiterated the argument, common among cloud-computing fans, that conventional email systems fail much more frequently.
• Schmidt repeatedly defended the proposed settlement Google had reached with authors and publishers regarding its book archive. Recurring theme: It’s not a perfect settlement, but it’s workable.
• Schmidt stressed the importance of porting Google’s Chrome browser to Apple’s Mac platform and said this would happen within months.
• Schmidt said Google was working on ways to help publishers sell their work on the Web (via one-offs or subscription). But he said he had no interest in promoting one publisher’s results over another, as Associated Press officials had recently suggested: “We have to be very very careful not to favor one media organization over another, with regard to speed or latency.”
• Schmidt, who’d previously noted that he expected Google to start making an acquisition per month, said that these would likely be small, five-to-ten-person companies. He added that it was unlikely the company would be in the market for something the size of a YouTube acquisition, which cost Google $1.65 billion. Translation: Don’t expect us to pony up billions for Twitter.

Earlier: My live coverage of the press conference:

Google (GOOG) co-founder Sergey Brin is sitting down with about a dozen reporters in Google’s New York City headquarters for a Q&A session. Tune in for live coverage. This should be a wide-ranging conversation, which I’ll attempt to cover live as well as I can. Please consider everything below to be a paraphrase unless it’s in quotes.

Brin is joined by Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Brin gives an unofficial intro.

Schmidt adds his own informal introduction.

Schmidt: We’re here because we have a global sales meeting in New York, and we’re winding that up right now. A series of internal talks, and the mood was “very, very positive.” We told them that “the worst is behind us” (which Schmidt has said before). We’re seeing recovery not just in the U.S., but in Europe as well. I had been in error in thinking it would be U.S. first, then Europe second. Asia is less important, obviously. We’re increasing our hiring rate and investment rate in an anticipation of a recovery.

Brin discusses some tweaks to search. Do you feel that Microsoft’s innovations with Bing will cause you to accelerate your innovations?

Brin: Competition is healthy. Microsoft (MSFT) has made its contributions. So has Cuill. Many of the tweaks in Bing we’d already seen from Microsoft Live earlier in the year.

Schmidt: I agree!

But do you think Bing is really different? Or just a rebranding.

Brin: [Demurs]

Schmidt: You guys should judge us and our competitors. We’ve been criticized for having a self-referential view of the world. But I’d argue that our success so far proves that’s been a good strategy.

Please talk about Android and other mobile plans.

Brin: We started with Android because it was a problem for us, as an end-user and a developer, that phones lacked powerful browsers and the ability to install powerful apps. I think Android has addressed this very well, but it has also pushed the market. It has pushed Apple (AAPL) with the iPhone and RIM (RIMM) and Windows Mobile. I’m pretty excited about the future; they’re getting increasingly capable browsers, and you can now write native applications across five platforms that will cover most smart phones. I think that having the software platform has freed the hardware makers from spending time on that, and they can rejuvenate their efforts on hardware.

Please talk about enterprise efforts.

Brin: We started in enterprise, like mobile, to address our own needs. When we started with mail in ‘04, Web email was like a toy. We really focused on something that would work in an enterprise and then made it available to consumers. We feel we’re farther ahead (than competitors) both in email and in collaborative document-editing. We’re moving toward eventually having everything (all our applications) available everywhere. “I just think the cloud model is a better model….I do think this install-less model of a cloud is better….It’s definitely made me more productive.”

More on enterprise from Brin: We’ve been successful with both SMB [small and medium business] and increasingly with enterprise. We’ve got a big implementation with Genetech (DNA), and in Washington D.C. We’re specifically adding features for enterprise. That’s part of the Postini acquisition–to add some of those email features for enterprises. You’d be surprised to hear some of the things businesses ask for.

Please talk about recent Gmail outages.

Brin: Certainly we’re not happy with any outages. With those outages we’re at the “three nines” level, which is not where we want to be. Targeting “four nines” by end of quarter. We’ll let you know how we do. Focusing not only on outages, which we don’t like, but recovery time. Second outage could have been resolved in five or ten minutes, but we made errors in handling it, and it extended over an hour. But if you look at a typical enterprise today, those outages tend to add up to more than even these kinds of outages that we had in Q3. Also, we’re working on the number of people affected by outages. Trying to group people into pods so that if one goes down it doesn’t affect others.

You’re adding more complexity to search. It’s more confusing than it ever was. Same thing with site links. Is that an issue (it is for Danny Sullivan)?

Brin: I’d like to see all the options, available in all the corpuses. We don’t have all the same options in each offering. In terms of the links and snippets that we’re offering, we’re trying to experiment with that.

On Google book deal: If the judge asked you why he shouldn’t be concerned by the concentration of Google’s power, what would you say?

Schmidt: It’s an error to answer a theoretical question from a journalist. But anyway, we won’t get that kind of question. With respect to book search, we were doing something that we thought was appropriate. We were sued, and after three years of discussion, we’ve come to a settlement. This is perfectly normal. From our perspective, this is a settlement we like, it’s a settlement we think they’ll like, and we’ll hear what the court says, within minutes. Let me reframe your question: There’s nothing particularly exclusive about what we’re doing. The rights registry we’re doing is for the benefit of orphan works. “It’s not a particularly good business for us. We’re going it because we think it’s the right thing to do.” We don’t think the settlement is perfect, but we think it’s good.

What are plans to expand book search?

Schmidt: We’re already huge. There are millions of books that have never been read, and we’re going to deliver readers to those books.

Brin: We want as many works as possible in some form, because that’s of tremendous value.

Schmidt: This doesn’t cover all international books, all books in the world. [Some disagreement about this between Brin and Schmidt]. It will take time to get the registry up and running, so for the near future I think that’s all we can achieve.

Back to the economy, please.

Schmidt: We’ve tried for a while to figure out if Google is an accurate predictor of the economy, and we can’t prove it. If we could, we’d brag about it. Last early in the year we saw a decline in U.K., which surprised us. From our perspective, the low point was somewhere in the spring. Which is why I said worst was behind us in May, June. We noticed a recovery “June-ish.” The conventional wisdom is that U.S. recessions are 18-24 months. Bernanke sees a recovery too, which we agree with. Conventional wisdom was that Europe would lag by three-five months, which we’re not seeing. Europe is not one country, and it varies a great deal depending on which country we’re in. I won’t go in to specifics but it’s the obvious stuff–the countries that didn’t have a big bump did not have a big fall. More on being a leading indicator: Obviously we’re a leading indicator in advertising.

Brin: And we’re good indicator for consumer spending, and you can see for yourself by looking at Google trends.

It seems as if Chrome isn’t having the impact with consumers that you would like.

Brin: [Starts, then stopped by Schmidt]

Schmidt: Some of your premise about Chrome is incorrect, in terms of adoption, and we’re going to get that message out.

Brin: It’s actually exceeding our benchmarks.

Schmidt: I see a lot of Macs in this room, and a lot of very sophisticated people are using Macs now and we need to get a version of Chrome out for that, which we’ll have in a couple of months. Key to browser strength is speed. In general, we announced Chrome OS and Chromium product. Everything is linked together: Cloud, chrome, etc.

At one point do Android and the Chrome OS come together or not come together?

Schmidt: Current definition of use platforms has to do with use patterns. Android for mobile, delivered via telecom store, heavily integrated with telco offerings, like our Verizon (VZ) deal, which we’re enormously excited about. The analog for Chrome is that it’s designed for a 10, 12-inch form factor. They both use Linux, etc. But they’re designed for different uses. [Netbooks?] May be some overlap there.

Is Google being too nice? Is there a rethinking of relationships with aggrieved groups?

Schmidt: In many ways we’ve always wanted to be this Google as opposed to the way we were perceived a few years ago. We’re particularly proud of the way we’re working with advertising agencies, which is very important to us. With the media industry, we’re having success with YouTube and YouTube monetization, and we’ll have more on that coming forward….”We have always wanted to have these partnerships….We’re learning how to do them in a way that they win, too.”

Brin: People can now differentiate between us and the Internet.

Schmidt: Google is an innovator. The Internet is causing collisions. Innovation plus collisions equals opportunity. For instance, the fact that Verizon has embraced most of the open principles that we put forth five years ago is shocking. “It’s pretty amazing. This is Verizon. It’s not some itty-bitty telecom start-up.”

Are you uncomfortable with Google employees’ sense of entitlement? [Per new Ken Auletta book]

Brin: [Refers to layoffs--Schmidt corrects him: "We did not have layoffs."] [Addendum: Schmidt was talking about Google closing engineering offices in Phoenix and other locations; Google did have layoffs last winter.] You’re right:

What do you think about publishers requiring pay walls, and how will you help surface that.

Schmidt: We’re starting with that YouTube. Overall, “there’s clearly a market for free content, and that market is the size of the Internet.” Also a market for subscription/paid. The analogy I would offer is TV. We all grew up with “free” TV. Now almost everyone pays for cable, and some people pay for pay-per-view, “which is ridiculously expensive,” but people will pay for particular events, like boxing. I think all three of those uses will emerge. We’re working on payment models, subscriptions, to enable that.

But what about surfacing paid content in search [this comes from WSJ.com editor Alan Murray]? Will you factor the desire of someone to pay for content into results?

Schmidt: We’re not going to use the price you use as our ranking in results. That’s not going to be our signal. But we’ll incorporate the price people are paying for your content into results. But I’m not going to answer this precisely because I don’t want to discuss how we produce results. The most interesting improvement you could make is that to the degree that we have more of the marketplace data available, we could take that information and reflect some of that in our rankings.

The AP CEO said Google or Microsoft might be willing to pay a premium for an advance look at the news.

Schmidt: We have a deal with the AP, and I don’t want to talk about any specifics of any deal. I don’t think that’s proper. “We have to be very very careful not to favor one media organization over another, with regard to speed or latency.” We are staying out of the media business. “You guys are very good at it, and we’re not.”

[Apologies for tech error; I missed the specific question and part of the following exchange, but the subject is entitlement.]

Brin: We cut down on snacks, etc. to “reset expectations” regarding entitlement.

Schmidt: “Google pays very well. Google is clearly a growth company. People at Google don’t work for those reasons at Google. We don’t want them to come to work for Google for those reasons. We want people to come to Google to change the world. Life is short.” The tightening in the last year has been good for this, by the way, the controls put into place by Patrick Pichette, who is our hero, have been very helpful.

Please talk about M&A plans and goal of one acquisition per month.

Schmidt: That’s been our historic pattern. I think we will be buying small companies–five, ten people. That’s where some of our best stuff has been. One day Larry and Sergey bought Android, and I didn’t even notice. Think about the strategic opportunities that has created. Sergey found Google Earth one day while he was surfing on the Web. And then he walked into my office and told me he bought them. “And I said, ‘for how much, Sergey?’ And it turned out to be a few million.”

Would you buy a YouTube?

Schmidt: Is there another one to buy? The problem with that size of acquisition is that you have to make your money back. I think that DoubleClick and YouTube will be two of our best acquisitions. DoubleClick is already close to paying back, and YouTube will get there soon. But bear in mind that any major acquisition now will involve a regulatory review, because of our size and because our competitors will make sure of that.

[Sorry, missed another question]

Do you anticipate making large upfront commitments for new or renewed search deals [as you did with MySpace and AOL]?

Schmidt: I’d rather not comment on search deals. We are in discussions with both of those companies. “Some of our best friends are in those companies.”

[Missed yet another one]

What will new tablet machines [like Apple's] mean for you? And to content producers?

Brin: Hardware is getting amazing with regard to cost. Used to be that display was expensive. Now that’s cheap, and so are chips, etc. Now, the main cost is broadband connection, or cellular, or however you get to the Internet. That’s why wide broadband availability is important to us. Think about how much you spend on access costs compared to the amount you spend on your handset. The phone cost is negligible.

Schmidt: Not sure how to answer question. We provide the infrastructure below what you’re talking about [touch interfaces, etc.]. Kindle is a good example. Don’t think about current one, think about one two or three years out. I think there will be many kinds of things like Kindles, and that’s a material change in the way people will interact with hardware, media.

Brin: I think it’s better if hardware isn’t locked down to specific platforms.

[Long exchange between Schmidt and Danny Sullivan that I'll have to pick up later]

Should Google be required to lease servers and access to Google checkout numbers to deal with “lock-in” issues that broke up the telcos?

Schmidt: Google Checkout isn’t interesting. But I think your analogy is wrong and that there are no data to support your theses.

[I missed the next question on the book settlement about orphan works, etc.]

Schmidt: A lot of these complaints are being made by people who don’t want a solution.

What are the reasonable book settlement proposals you’ve seen?

Schmidt: Goal is to get all the books to everyone and to get all the authors compensated properly. Some of the proposals make sense to me, but I don’t want to characterize them. Not a perfect solution, but the best one we can do.

How will book settlement affect international users?

Brin: It won’t. We’d love settlements that work across a range of countries.

Why won’t you be like Microsoft with regard to antitrust?

Schmidt: Many reasons. Culture, for one. Another reason is that majority of users are one click away from moving away from us. Third: If we went into an “evil room” and had an “evil light” shined on us, and we then behaved in an “evil way” we would be destroyed….There is a fundamental trust between Google and its users.”

Schmidt walks through “ludicrous” thought experiment whereby Chrome takes 80 percent of market share and then tries to lock consumers in, noting that it wouldn’t work due to open source.

Do you think you’ll take another stab at moving into radio, print?

Brin: We are quite optimistic on the TV front. Radio and print didn’t pan out as well as we thought initially. One of the reasons is that those mediums are moving online and consumers are moving online and the publishers/producers want to work with us there. “We were kind of at the dock where the ship had already left.” But TV is quite similar to the Web in terms, potentially, of measurability, so we’re excited about those prospects.

Is page rank broken? People are gaming it, etc.

Brin: No. We have to continually develop. Part of the issue is span, but the main issue is that everything changes. We’re doing a much better job of ranking than we did a decade ago. If we just rested on our laurels with what we wrote in paper from 1998, we’d be in big trouble.

What is it? A TV (and movie) portal that looks more or less like every other TV (and movie) portal on the Web: Hulu, TV.com, Sling.com, Fancast, etc.

The only reason for AT&T (T) to launch its own portal now would be as a placeholder until it launches its own “TV Everywhere” play, where subscribers to its  “U-Verse” TV service would get Web access to cable shows. That’s the same strategy that Comcast (CMCSA), Time Warner Cable (TWC), Verizon (VZ) and everyone else in the pay TV business is trying.

But while AT&T will likely be doing the same, this site isn’t for that. At least, not according to the note AT&T sent to NewTeeVee, which makes it sound like the company is creating…another free Web TV portal:

We have started a soft launch of a new site called AT&T Entertainment. This site will feature free online content available to any consumer. We’re finalizing a few final elements, and we’ll share more details on our official launch soon.

Allrighty, then. As AT&T says, it’s a soft launch, so maybe when it’s ready for primetime, things will make more sense. But for now it’s a head-scratcher.

One thing that distinguishes AT&T’s site from, say, Hulu: Hulu lets you embed clips from the site on your blog, while AT&T’s site, which relies on Hulu for much of its content, doesn’t. So here’s an awesome, upsetting clip you can see on AT&T’s site, but can only embed by heading to Hulu. Makes sense, right?

That factoid comes via Web-tracking service comScore (SCOR), which says the two sites accounted for 17.4 percent of the display ads in the U.S. market in July.

News Corp.’s (NWS) MySpace, in the midst of a turnaround effort, has a slight lead over Facebook–9.2 percent of the market versus 8.2 percent. That makes sense since MySpace has always been aggressive about loading up with ads, while Facebook has been fairly reticent, much to the dismay of the “when are you going to monetize?” crowd. (Click table to enlarge.)

That’s something you knew intuitively, of course. But interesting to see it in graphic form.

Another data point you already knew, but may still find worthwhile to see in black and white: Just how small the scraps are for the rest of much of the social network ad world. By comScore’s count, the next eight-biggest social networks command a collective 1.4 percent of the market. (By the way, ever heard of MocoSpace.com before? Do you know anyone who claims to be a user?)

Remember that we’re just talking about overall impressions, not dollars. And ad impressions on social networks are famously cheap, so this stat only tells part of the story. But it’s an important part. It illustrates the potential that the services have, even if they haven’t capitalized on it (not that they haven’t tried).

Meanwhile, here’s a bonus table from comScore laying out the top advertisers on social networks. No surprise to see the likes of AT&T (T) and Sprint (S) here. But perhaps it’s noteworthy that Verizon (VZ), the strongest U.S. telco, spends the least on social media impressions. Meanwhile, social network app makers/services like Zynga are spending heavily.

(News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this Web site.)

If the court’s decision holds up, it could well start another round of dealmaking similar to the one we saw at the beginning of this decade in which the industry consolidated to about half a dozen major players.

Reuters:

“The commission has failed to demonstrate that allowing a cable operator to serve more than 30 percent of all cable subscribers would threaten to reduce either competition or diversity in programming,” the court said.

The judges pointed to rising competition among video providers, including satellite companies like DirecTV Group Inc, as well as telephone companies like AT&T Inc and Verizon Communications Inc, which have been rolling out their own subscription television services.

“Cable operators, therefore, no longer have the bottleneck power over programming that concerned the Congress in 1992.” the court said. The FCC’s cable ownership limit has been the focus of court challenges for years.

As Reuters points out, new FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski can try to appeal the decision or try to write a new one. But if the cap stays off, we’re likely to see another round of combinations, or attempted combinations, at the very least.

Lots of handicappers have already been expecting big cable operators like Comcast (CMCSA) to make a run at programming assets, as it did with Disney (DIS) years ago. But what if the company deploy its assets to bulk up with more subscribers instead? Investors in Cablevision (CVC), the smallish, New York-based cable system that is a perpetual supposed takeover target that never gets taken over, like the idea: CVC shares are climbing modestly in a flat market.

Discovery joins other big names like CBS (CBS) and Time Warner’s (TWX) HBO and Turner, in Comcast’s (CMCSA) “On Demand Online,” which launched last month in a few thousand homes. The program is designed to convince Comcast subscribers to stay on as subscribers, since only subscribers will get Web access to the programming. It’s an answer to Hulu’s offering, which makes shows from News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox, GE’s (GE) NBC and soon, Disney’s (DIS) ABC available to anyone with Internet access.

It’s a variation of the “TV Everywhere” program Time Warner has been touting, and similar to ones that other cable providers, like Time Warner Cable (TWC), and telcos like Verizon (VZ) and AT&T (T) are pursuing.

Like most of the other networks that have linked up with Comcast for the On Demand test, Discovery isn’t handing over its top-tier stuff. You can’t see “Deadliest Catch,” the network’s show about grumpy Alaskan fishermen, for instance.

Meanwhile, some of the stuff you can get will be “windowed”–the industry’s term for holding shows back from viewers to maximize TV eyeballs. Episodes of something called “Verminators,” for instance, won’t be available until a week after they air on TV. But! Comcast subscribers will be able to watch episodes of “Man Vs. Wild” and “Swords,” which will be available the day after they air.

And any full-length programming that Discovery puts on the Web is a change for the cable network, which has held off from doing so precisely because it didn’t want to upset Comcast, which pays it a hefty fee for its programming.

Related note: I hate the “On Demand Online” tag Comcast uses to describe this strategy. And the Comcast people hate it when I call this “Web TV you’ll pay to see.” Their point is that you’re not paying any additional fees in order to get this stuff on the Web; my point is that only paying Comcast subs can see this stuff, as opposed to Hulu’s free-for-all (for now) offering.

So, can anyone suggest a different name? Give me a good one and I’ll use it.

Meanwhile, here’s a “Man Vs. Wild” clip featuring a pesky porcupine:

At least that’s the suggestion from consumer research service YouGov, which measures “brand perception” via an online panel. YouGov’s BrandIndex survey, which interviews 5,000 people a day and rates brand scores on a scale from 100 to minus-100, shows a big spike over the last couple months for BlackBerry. Adults 35-49 gave the brand a value score of 7.5 on July 21, but by August 4, that number increased to 18.

The BrandIndex people figure that jump stems from the introduction of the Tour, and particularly from the push that Verizon (VZ) has given it–Sprint (S) is also selling the handset, but is keeping that news to itself for the most part. Go to a Sprint store and try to find a Tour. It’s not easy!

But! Even while the oldsters thought more favorably about the BlackBerry, young folks seem to have turned on it: Adults 18-34 gave the brand a value score of 21.5 on July 7, but that number tumbled to 7.9 by August 4. Here’s the chart (click to enlarge):

What gives? One suggestion: Verizon’s decision to drop the prices for almost all of its smartphones (but not the Tour) to $99, which presumably makes the BlackBerry product look…I don’t know…more expensive? I’m not buying it.

Anyway, I’ve been in the old fogey demo for several years now, and I will say, the Tour appeals to me. But then again, that’s mostly because the noisy complaints I hear about the iPhone–primarily AT&T’s (T) lousy coverage and the machine’s puny battery–have kept me from making the leap to Apple (AAPL).

Still, for now I’m hemming and hawing, Hamlet style, on my big purchase. Perhaps I’ll write a post when I make a decision!

If that’s the kind of thing that makes you happy, then you would love today’s call, in which the exact same thing happened again. Twice! From my transcription/paraphrase this afternoon:

Q: What about getting into the low priced/netbook category?

Apple COO Tim Cook: “Our goal is not to build the most computers, it’s to build the best. Whatever price point we can build the best in, we will play there. At this point, we don’t see a way to build a great product at that price point, $399, $499.” We think many customers buying those find themselves “disenchanted” after buying cheapo/netbooks.

Q: Do you think there is an emerging market for a “truly mobile device” with a larger screen, a market big enough that you may want to participate?

Cook: “Never want to discount anything in the future,” and never want to answer specifically your question about new products. [Duh.] But boy, do we think netbooks are lousy, and we think customers agree.

Two things here:

1. Apple has a history of disparaging products and markets right before they unveil their own. So it’s not unreasonable for analysts to keep asking about the prospects for a supercheap Mac laptop. But Apple really is emphatic about its distaste for these machines.
2. Apple is not ruling some sort of device that’s more expensive than a netbook and less expensive than a $999 MacBook…and may have a big touchscreen…and is bigger than an iPhone, etc. Something, perhaps, like an $800 iTablet. We’ll see.

EARLIER:

Joining call late; analysis of Q3 results here.

Reading from prepared statement:

• Eight billion songs purchased and downloaded from iTunes store.
• Slight uptick at Mac retail stores. 50 percent of Macs sold at stores to customers who didn’t own Macs before. 258 stores. 27 store remodels.
• Gross-margin improvement: Component cost increase not as high as expected; weaker U.S. dollar helped.
• Cash pile: Will be invested in short-term investments. First week of Q4, made $500 million payment to Toshiba for future supply of NAND flash memory.

Q&A:

• Please talk about your relationship with wireless carriers (i.e., when will you dump AT&T (T) for Verizon (VZ). Tim Cook: “I think that most of the carriers we’re doing business with are thrilled with lower churn…and, of course, their customers are demanding the iPhone.” Do you see opportunity beyond the iPhone, like data plans for laptops with AT&T? “Nothing to be announced today.” How’s your relationship with AT&T? “I think it’s an excellent relationship and we’re very happy with it.”
• Discussion of education and professional market for Mac laptops/PCs–both affected by economy more than consumer market, i.e., schools and corporations are less likely to spring for shiny new Macs than Joe Sixpack.
• How is the $99 iPhone performing? As we made changes–launch of 3Gs and lower-priced iPhones–we saw acceleration of unit sales. But won’t break down mix. Supply of phones has been “constrained” and demand is robust. Opportunity for enterprise sale? Big opportunity. Doing well with small business, and with big corporations and agencies where employees can purchase for themselves.
• Guidance details? No change in thinking regarding guidance offerings. We usually see an increase in Mac units from June to September, but we think the sequential increase will be less than in previous years since we’ve refreshed our lines a while back. Also, education sales are “under pressure from budget shortfalls.” Same thing with the iPod: We think we’ll see a decline for regular players but an increase for the iPod touch. Seasonality makes projections a little funky this time around given timing of product launches.
• Channel inventory for iPhone lower is than we would like; there are 1.83 million phones in inventory.
• Given the $999 MacBook and price cuts for the Mac line, is the MacBook more or less elastic than anticipated? As we expected, some people are now buying up, because they can get the Macbook Pro for $1,199, down from $1,899. “We’re not thinking fundamentally different about the Mac business than we were before.” If we can build great Macs at lower prices, we will, but we won’t put the Mac brand on products that aren’t up to our standards.
• Update on Snow Leopard? Why such a low price point? Snow Leopard is priced aggressively so that all our users can upgrade to it, and we expect that they will. What commodity prices are you worried about, what should we think of the Toshiba prebuy? Are others coming? The market for DRAM and large-size LCDs has “shifted to constrained environment” and prices have moved accordingly. The NAND supply is getting better. We have a long-term supply agreement with Toshiba. We view flash as key component because we use it in so many products, and we’re a big consumer on a worldwide basis. We’re always open to similar deals. We’ve done one with LG on LCDs. We may do others, but we’re not working on one now.
• Please talk more about consumer demand for lower-priced laptops. No details forthcoming. But on macro level: Once price changes, people are upsold from $999 unit to $1,199 unit. [We just heard that.] Prior to change, we had seen people leaning toward the $999 product. What about pricing on iPhone side? Sounds like $99 3G iPhone helped drive traffic to the $199 3GS iPhone. Was that the plan? We’re focused on total iPhone units. So we’re psyched about 5.2M iPhones sold. Also, take note that the 3GS is in short supply and not available in all territories. Also, early in cycle, you have more upgraders, and upgraders are more likely to get higher priced phones. Still, too early to tell about product mix.
• Competitors are now finally coming out with rival app stores–Pre (barely), BlackBerry, etc.). What are you up to in answering back? Well, we just launched OS 3.0. That’s pretty great. It has an Installed base of 45 million (iPhones and iPod touch). We have a gazillion apps. According to the latest numbers from Nokia (NOK) and RIM (RIMM), they have a couple thousand each; Android has maybe 5,000. “We feel extremely good about our competitive position and continue to believe that we’re light years ahead of other people.”
• What about getting into the low-priced/netbook category? Tim Cook: “Our goal is not to build the most computers, it’s to build the best. Whatever price point we can build the best in, we will play there. At this point, we don’t see a way to build a great product at that price point, $399, $499.” We think many customers buying those find themselves “disenchanted” after buying cheapo/netbooks.
• Is the carrier network strong enough to handle all the apps and the more robust apps you’re coming out with every day? Non-answer. Do you think you guys will make investments on the side to take pressure of carrier-capacity issues? No plans. When we entered business, we looked at it, decided what we could do well was deliver the handset. I think there are other people that have more skills in the network area, and I think we have a lot of those partners.
• Back to netbooks and things like netbooks, but better, like the iTablet: Do you think there is an emerging market for a “truly mobile device” with a larger screen, a market big enough that you may want to participate? Cook: “Never want to discount anything in the future,” and never want to answer specifically your question about new products. [Duh.] But, boy, do we think netbooks are lousy and we think customers agree.
• Any info on iPhone sales split between new buyers and upgrades? Nope. Okay, how about the app store? It looks like prices are in a “race to the bottom”; there are lots of 99 cent apps. Are you worried about that? And can you help customers distinguish between good ones and “garbage”? Cook: “We realize there’s further opportunity for improvement” regarding promoting quality apps, etc. Regarding price: It’s up to the developers. As the installed base grows, it makes more sense to have lower prices, but that’s up to the developers.

Call finished.

The service is laying off the majority of its employees, and CEO Mike Volpi (pictured right) is out, replaced by Matt Zelesko, who had been SVP of engineering. The Joost.com portal site will stay open, but best to think of it as an ad for the company’s hosting and distribution services, which it will try to sell to cable companies and the like.

A Joost spokesperson declined to say how deep the layoffs will be; but I’m told that the company, which had more than 100 employees last fall, will be down to a couple dozen after the cuts are done. In a post on Joost’s Web site, Volpi said the company “will say goodbye to many of our colleagues and friends.”

This isn’t a shock: Joost’s fate has been the subject of whisper and rumors for the last year or more. The service made an initial splash in 2007 by raising $45 million from the founders of Skype and an array of high-profile investors and media companies, including Sequoia Capital and Viacom (VIA), and was initially supposed to deliver copyrighted content via a peer-to-peer distribution system and a player that users downloaded to their desktops.

But YouTube, and later Hulu, conditioned users to watch video via their browsers, and Joost’s software never caught on. By last fall, the company had retooled and began offering video via the browser like everyone else, but it has never been able to generate a significant audience. In November, a month after the company launched its Web browser, it said it was attracting 2.1 million unique users world-wide, a fraction of YouTube’s audience, and well behind rivals like Hulu, MetaCafe, Veoh and DailyMotion.

Here’s the service’s unique visitor count, per Comscore (SCOR); Joost’s unique viewer count, which is the more relevant metric for video sites, is considerably smaller (click to enlarge):

Joost has been a frequent candidate for buyout rumors, and the company hasn’t gone out of its way to deny them. The supposed buyers would be cable companies like Comcast (CMCSA) Time Warner Cable (TWC) or telcos like AT&T (T) and Verizon (VZ), which would presumably use Joost’s technical team to help build out their own Web video plays.

But some of the cable guys and telcos insist that they’re fine with the people they have. And if they do want to buy a video player, they have plenty of options: Just about all of Joost’s peers have been on the block, formally or informally, for the past few months.

JOOST TO PROVIDE WHITE LABEL ONLINE VIDEO PLATFORM

NEW YORK AND LONDON – June 30, 2009 – Joost, the online video startup, announced today that, along with Joost.com, it will focus on providing white label online video platforms for media companies, including cable and satellite providers, broadcasters and video aggregators. This technology and service offering will support content owners’ efforts to build comprehensive branded environments online.

Media companies around the world are embracing internet-based video portals as a key path to distribute their premium video, but building a world-class video portal is increasingly difficult and expensive. Joost will focus on this issue and provide the market with a cost-effective, end-to-end solution for media companies to publish video under their own brands.

As a part of this new direction, Joost will reorganize and restructure its business. A core team in New York and London will work on providing these solutions, as well as operating and supporting Joost.com and its associated video applications. Joost also will wind down operations in its Leiden development center.

Matt Zelesko, currently SVP of Engineering at Joost, will take over as CEO while continuing to lead the engineering organization. Stacey Seltzer, currently SVP of international business development and content acquisition at Joost, will run the business operations. Mike Volpi has stepped down as CEO of Joost but will remain actively involved as Chairman of the Board.

Joost plans to make its white label video platform commercially available to media companies around the world. This offering will provide a solution for companies looking to build a branded experience for their content on their own site as well as other sites and platforms in their distribution networks.

The idea is to protect cable subscription revenues by giving pay TV customers–but only pay TV customers–Web access to all the shows they get on TV, and hoping this keeps them from canceling their subscriptions.

But that’s old news: Comcast (CMCSA) already told Bloomberg earlier this month that the two companies are linking up, and that Time Warner (TWX) would offer programming from some of its networks in the first part of Comcast’s tests.

Presumably Bewkes and Roberts will offer up a few more details, like which Time Warner networks are participating (good bet: TNT and/or TBS), along with a timetable. But I worry that the press conference will be light on details, in large part because many of the details haven’t been hammered out yet.

Still, I’ve been able to glean more from industry executives who’ve been involved in discussions with Time Warner, Comcast and other players in the authentication effort, which Bewkes has been calling “TV Everywhere” and Roberts has been calling “OnDemand Online.” Some of the details:

• The test will start very small–with some 5,000 subscribers–but Comcast is determined to expand it aggressively and wants to have it available throughout its system by the end of the year. Comcast plans to use its Fancast video portal as a hub for its efforts. And it  may use other digital assets it has acquired as well. Online Rolodex Plaxo, for instance, which the company bought last year, could be used to help subscribers sign in to watch their shows.
• The test is separate from Time Warner Cable’s (TWC) own authentication offering, which is essentially the same thing but will launch later than the Comcast test, using different technology, and will likely offer a different mix of programming.
• And those tests are separate from the one that telcos Verizon (VZ) and AT&T (T) have been working on with satellite operators Echostar (SATS) and DirecTV (DTV). That one also has the same thrust, but will take the longest to roll out.
• Comcast isn’t likely to announce other programming partners for the tests until later this month.
• Hulu is interested in playing along, because its owners–GE’s (GE) NBC, News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox and Disney’s (DIS) ABC–see authentication as a way to appease riled-up cable providers. The cable guys are upset that Hulu shows (some) cable programs for free while they have to pay for the right to air them. In theory, authentication solves that problem for Hulu because everyone will be on a level playing field: Only cable subscribers will get access to cable programming, whether it’s on Hulu, Fancast or anywhere else. But the cable guys aren’t rushing to let Hulu in just yet.
• Separately, NBC has been talking about offering some cable programming that isn’t already on Hulu for the tests. That could also be seen as an appeasement move, but I’ve heard a more benign suggestion: NBC merely wants to figure out if authentication technology works because it is considering using it for some of its coverage of the Vancouver Olympics next year.
• CBS (CBS), which isn’t a part of Hulu and which doesn’t have any cable assets of its own, would still like to get into the mix. The idea is that the network would offer the cable guys shows that it has kept offline until now (say, “The Mentalist”) while tying the Web programming to “retransmission” fees it would like to extract from the cable companies for all of its shows. Comcast executives seem amenable to the notion.
• Big cable players like Viacom (VIA) and Liberty’s (LINTA) Discovery may participate in some trials but not others. Viacom, for instance, has been talking about working with the telco group but not with Comcast during the trials. It has also discussed offering a “premium product”–like access to the full “Spongebob Squarepants” library or other kids’ shows that have a very limited online profile–to Time Warner Cable subscribers for an additional fee.

Bewkes and Roberts are scheduled to speak at the Time Warner Center at 9:45 am EDT, so we’ll know more shortly.

The announcement means that ESPN360.com, which lets you watch all sorts of live sports, whether or not the flagship ESPN channel is broadcasting them, will be available to 41 million homes “in time for college football season.” It’s already available via a host of ISPs, including AT&T (T), Verizon (VZ), but not, alas, Time Warner Cable (TWC), which has made it very hard for me to watch the UEFA Champions League games.

It’s worth noting that this is one of the reasons that ESPN wasn’t included in Disney’s Hulu deal. Cable providers pay huge fees to get access to the channel, and there’s no way Disney (DIS) is going to jeopardize that by letting people watch the same stuff for free on Hulu. But if the subs are already paying for it–the tab works about to be something like $3 per subscriber, whether they watch ESPN or not–then giving them online access as well seems to be OK.

Worth noting is that this arrangement–whereby subscribers to a particular ISP get access to online video, but the general public doesn’t–is exactly what both Comcast (CMCSA) and Time Warner (TWX) are talking about with their various “authentication” plans. The difference is a slight one: The content guys are proposing that their online video will be made available to cable subscribers instead of broadband subscribers, but it’s essentially the same thing. So if you’re wondering how that will work–the Comcast and Time Warner plans, which are supposed to roll out this year, will be trialed very, very slowly–take a look at ESPN360. If you can.

That instruction comes from Rep. Eric Massa, a Democrat who represents the Rochester area, and it’s aimed specifically at Time Warner Cable (TWC), which is starting to experiment with broadband “caps” in Massa’s hometown. Rabble-rousing quote: “Just at a time when access to information is driving our economic recovery, Time Warner is moving to stagnate the 21st Century technology needed to rebuild America.”

But any of the big Internet pipe players contemplating charging their users on a per-use basis–and most of them are–can expect to get similar blowback from lawmakers. It’s a no-brainer: Consumers now expect to be able to use as much data as they want. And the cable guys–or the phone guys, in the markets where AT&T (T) and Verizon (VZ) are offering Internet service–are easy political targets.

That’s a problem for the cable/phone guys, who want to use the caps to manage the boom in Web video. Their spin: They need the caps to make sure that power users who are consuming hours of movies, TV shows, etc., via their PCs shoulder an appropriate bill for the bandwidth they use. The cynics among us think the plan is designed to discourage people from ditching their cable TV service in favor of  Netflix (NFLX) on-demand, Hulu and TV downloads from Apple’s (AAPL) iTunes.

The cable guys are aware of the brewing backlash. At the industry’s annual convention last week, they were musing openly about better ways to sell their plans: Not as “caps” on use, for instance, but as “additional levels of service.” That’s going to take some awfully persuasive campaigning, and that’s not the kind of thing monopolists excel at.

But perhaps they can just use this “Simpsons” clip to make their case:

Midway through next year, Google’s $900 million, 3.5-year search advertising deal with News Corp. and MySpace expires. What are the odds that Rupert Murdoch’s social network gets anything close to that with a new contract?

Very, very low.

When News Corp. (NWS) first inked the Google deal in 2006, the pact was a huge shot in the arm for the company because it guaranteed that Murdoch would earn back the $600 million he’d spent on the site–and that was just for a small slice of its ad inventory.

But in retrospect, it’s clear that the agreement was a one-time only affair. If MySpace does get another Google deal next year, it will be at much lower terms. (News Corp. is the owner of Dow Jones, which owns this Web site.)

Barclays analyst Douglas Anmuth, who spent the weekend poking through Google’s 10-K filing, finds yet more evidence that Google (GOOG) has no intention of paying through the nose again. In 2007, he notes, Google spent $1.7 billion on guaranteed deals like the MySpace arrangement. Last year, that number dropped to $1 billion. (Click chart to enlarge.)

Anmuth, who also notes that Google has recently walked away from a distribution deal with Dell (DELL) and ceded a Verzion (VZ) deal to Microsoft (MSFT), concludes that “Google no longer sees the need to win distribution at any cost, and we also think it is internally re-evaluating its relationship with MySpace.”

Want even more data points? OK: Two years ago, Google let Microsoft win the Facebook bake-off, allowing Redmond to plunk down $240 million for an overvalued stake in the social network. And last year, Google Co-Founder Sergey Brin used the company’s earnings call to sound off about its disappointment with advertising on social networks.

Does this sound like a company itching to re-up?

This isn’t necessarily a disaster, by the way. Wall Street long ago stopped factoring in Google dollars in MySpace’s results (the unit posted flat revenues last quarter, which isn’t bad considering the rest of the online ad market). And Microsoft will certainly be interested in acquiring additional search inventory any way it can–ask the folks at Yahoo (YHOO) about that.

But without Google to help bid up the price, even Redmond won’t have to overpay for MySpace. Which means that if MySpace wants to keep bragging about its impressive growth, it’s going to have generate much more of that growth itself.

UPDATE: Here’s a response from MySpace:

“MySpace and Google have a long-standing, productive partnership on a number of levels including search advertising, our support of the Android operating system, implementation of Google Gears, and the co-development of OpenSocial. It’s extremely premature to speculate on what either company may do in 18 months.”

The new numbers come via Verizon’s Q4 report on earnings, which were OK, considering the brutal economy: The company reported earnings of $0.61 per share on revenues of $24.6 billion. Wall Street was fine with the earnings number, but had been expecting slightly higher revenues of $24.74 billion.

Verizon’s wireless growth was slower compared to the year before, when it added two million subs. Perhaps the company could have goosed those numbers with a better launch of its BlackBerry Storm, its would-be iPhone competitor from Research In Motion (RIMM). But despite a good-size media blitz, Verizon (VZ) was only able to move 500,000 units during the last quarter, according to reports.

So if those new customers aren’t buying iPhones–which are exclusive to Apple (AAPL) partner AT&T (T)–and they’re not buying Storms, then there’s a good chance they’re signing up for run-of-the-mill “feature phones.” That’s too bad: Verizon will take growth anywhere it can get it at this point, but it would rather sell high-end phones like the Storm, which generate lucrative data fees for the company.

Verizon Wireless is poised to have rivals of Amazon’s popular electronic Kindle reader use its network to download material such as books and newspapers wirelessly, according to an executive for the wireless service provider.

Tony Lewis, who runs a program that helps third-party vendors certify their products to work on Verizon’s network, said in an interview ahead of the Consumer Electronics Show that he does not see the U.S. recession and concerns about weak consumer spending stalling manufacturers’ plans to bring out even nonessential products such as e-readers.

‘Competitors to the Kindle are out there and ready,’ said Lewis, who declined to name the company’s e-reader partners. ‘In 2009 I’d expect them to come to the market.’”

Amazon’s e-book uses Sprint’s (S) wireless network to let you beam books, blogs and other stuff directly to the device, so it makes sense that Verizon Wireless, a joint venture between Verizon (VZ) and Vodafone, would want to get in on the action.

Looking for more details? No dice–I have a feeling that Lewis was in a wide-ranging talk about Verizon’s plans, and e-books came up glancingly. And indeed, Verizon could add a whole range of interesting products this year, a result of its “Open Development” program, which is supposed to crack open its airwaves to a slew of electronic devices, prompted by nagging from Google (GOOG).

[Image Credit: Kindle Cake via geeksugar]